Tuesday, June 26, 2018

It may come as a surprise to hear the idea that former President, Barack Obama, is anything less than the celebrity which the corporate media still attempts to portray him as. However, as many have realized, not everything we see on television is true to reality—not even news.

TV Reality

The phenomenon known as reality TV became a popular prime-time television trend during the early 2000s. Back then, it seemed as though every time we turned on a television, there was a new show studded with seemingly realistic people acting out supposedly realistic situations. This genre of mainstream programming became a common (are arguably overdone) mainstay within American entertainment. However, many may not have noticed the transition when reality TV migrated from the genre of mere entertainment into the arena of politics.

Beyond the portrayal of pseudo-reality as reality and dramatized fantasy as truth, it seems that many Americans did not catch onto the fact that the real world cannot accurately be portrayed by a media that is literally founded upon and remains so utterly dependent upon the a backbone of entertainment.

We might combine this situation with the fact that the media sells the narrative of their own business partners to their audience as though this narrative represented a balanced and objective perspective, despite the fact that by definition, corporately owned media lacks the capacity for objectivity. With these points in mind, it may become apparent that there is more to the news headlines of the past and present than many Americans have been able (or willing) to recognize.

In light of this clear discrepancy in corporate media, we will examine the unacknowledged details behind the war in Syria, the Islamic State, and the way in which the Obama administration apparently got away with creating and assisting this group to be as destructive as they were.

Rhodes has been described as being so trusted and close to Obama that he was"in the room" for almost every foreign policy decision of significance that Obama made during his eight years in office. While the Intercept interview is worth listening to in full, it's the segment on Syria that caught our attention.

Did you intervene too much in Syria? Because the CIA spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding and arming anti-Assad rebels, a lot of those arms, as you know, ended up in the hands of jihadist groups, some even in the hands of ISIS.Your critics would say you exacerbated that proxy war in Syria; you prolonged the conflict in Syria; you ended up bolstering jihadists.

Rhodes initially rambles about his book and "second guessing" Syria policy in avoidance of the question. But Hasan pulls him back with the following: "Oh, come on, but you were coordinating a lot of their arms."

The two spar over Hasan's charge of "bolstering jihadists" in the following key section of the interview, at the end of which Rhodes reluctantly answers "yeah..." — but while trying to pass ultimate blame onto US allies Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia (similar to what Vice President Biden did in a 2014 speech):

MH: Oh, come on, but you were coordinating a lot of their arms. You know, the U.S. was heavily involved in that war with the Saudis and the Qataris and the Turks.BR: Well, I was going to say: Turkey, Qatar, Saudi.MH: You were in there as well.BR: Yeah, but, the fact of the matter is that once it kind of devolved into kind of a sectarian-based civil war with different sides fighting for their perceived survival, I think we, the ability to bring that type of situation to close, and part of what I wrestled with in the book is the limits of our ability to pull a lever and make killing like that stop once it’s underway.

To our knowledge this is the only time a major media organization has directly asked a high ranking foreign policy adviser from the Obama administration to own up to the years long White House support to jihadists in Syria.

Though the interview was published Friday, its significance went without notice or comment in the mainstream media over the weekend (perhaps predictably). Instead, what did circulate was a Newsweek article mocking "conspiracy theories" surrounding the rapid rise of ISIS, including the following:

President Donald Trump has done little to dispel the myth of direct American support for ISIS since he took office. On the campaign trail in 2016, Trump claimed—without providing any evidence—that President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton co-founded the group and that ISIS “honors” the former president.

Meanwhile, mainstream media has been content to float the falsehood that President Obama's legacy is that he "stayed out" of Syria, instead merely approving some negligible level of aid to so-called "moderate" rebels who were fighting both Assad and (supposedly) the Islamic State. Rhodes has himself in prior interviews attempted to portray Obama as wisely staying "on the sidelines" in Syria.

But as we've pointed out many times over the years, this narrative ignores and seeks to whitewash possibly the largest CIA covert program in history, started by Obama, which armed and funded a jihadist insurgency bent of overthrowing Assad to the tune of $1 billion a year (one-fifteenth of the CIA’s publicly knownbudget according to leaked Edward Snowden documents revealed by the Washington Post).

As host of Al Jazeera's Head to Head, Hasan asked the former head of Pentagon intelligence under Obama, General Michael Flynn, who is to blame for the rise of ISIS? (the August 2015 interview was significantly prior to Flynn joining Trump's campaign).

Hasan presented Flynn with the 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) declassified memo revealing Washington support to al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorists in Syria in order to counter both Assad and Iran. Flynn affirmed Hasan's charge that it was "a willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood...".

Soon after, The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the shocking contents of the Flynn interview:

It will be interesting to see years from now which "narrative" concerning Obama's legacy in the Syrian conflict future historians choose to emphasize.

...Obama the president who "stayed out" and "on the sidelines" in Syria? ...Or Obama the president whose decisions fueled the rise of the most brutal terrorist organization the world has ever seen?

We might think about the crisis in Syria which the Obama administration apparently began and then left to remain after Obama's two-term (and war-shrouded) presidency ended. As things appeared, the presidential seat was intended to be succeeded by another individual loyal to globalist interests, in which case, this atrocity of global warmongering may have continued indefinitely, according to disclosures by retired general Wesley Clark and others.

Former presidential administrations oversaw the regime change of five of the seven countries which they intended to overthrow. Those included, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, and Iran. This was the same plan which subsequently fueled the creation of the group we now know as ISIS or the Islamic State. And as we might remember, the suspicious activities which ended up arming and mobilizing this terrorist organization were initiated by Obama's CIA.

This plan to topple foreign governments was never designed to be productive toward keeping the West safe in any way, according to sources. In fact, it was this war-path of the U.S. which helped to create the refugee crisis which the West is now facing. The carnage began in Iraq and then Afghanistan after 9/11, and according to history, the failures/suspicious activities of the CIA after the first Gulf War created the situation which the U.S. and the world were made to face following these failures.

According to sources, arms and vehicles are historically, methodically, and deliberately destroyed by military at the end of wars. This is done specifically so that the weapons of a country do not fall into the hands of its enemies. This is likely why we have never heard of the enemy of a country "lucking out" to such a great extent and acquiring entire arsenals of enemy weapons and supplies. However, under Obama, this common-sense procedure of destroying weapons was somehow missed entirely.

Up until this point, the media has attempted to portray the thorough arming and mobilizing of terrorists as innocent and accident. However, many independent journalists as well as a good portion of the American public believe that this occurrence in Iraq was not so much a mistake, but that it was planned and deliberate, and that these occurrence in general (whether in Iraq, Syria, or elsewhere) were only made to look as though they were accidental (as are many executions of elitist and Deep State plans).

Deliberate Accidents

We may remember that early on (starting around 2007), the disclosure of the CIA's creation and supposedly accidental assistance of ISIS was subtle and apologetic. We heard from former generals and political figures of how the sudden case of military butterfingers thoroughly armed to the teeth one of the worst adversaries the U.S. has ever faced overseas (at least according to media). Again, we ask, why have we never heard this happening in all of the history of modern warfare?

According to the testimony of Ben Rhodes, the suspicions of numerous Americans were well-placed. He communicates that the Obama administration did, in fact, deliberately armed jihadists in Syria, and according to General Clark, this was the same war-path which the United States embarked upon as they allegedly armed ISIS and other terrorist organizations.

As we have heard numerous times it the past, war is money. Every time we hear of a new war taking place on the planet, there is a group of elitists raking in large amounts of cash from the destruction and carnage.

Ever since the early 1900s, it has been a common trend among transnational corporations to fund large weapons manufacturers, petroleum companies, and vehicle producers. This is because these are especially profitable markets during times of war.

According to multiple sources, it was found that war was the one of the most efficient ways to fuel the modern economy to the advantage of the elite. As conflicts ballooned out of control between world powers, these elitists typically gear up to create the perfect scenario for large scale war and ensure that their markets prospered throughout the duration of the bloodshed.

After a time, these elitist-own establishments pooled their resources and even commissioned there own social engineering scheme so that they could instigate their war-based cash cow at any time they chose, according to research. Today, this war machine has been revealed to consist of a group of specialized agents whose job is to travel to foreign countries in order to manipulate their leaders into working toward the advantage of Western corporations.

This war machine has been steadily running for the majority of the 20th century, according to multiple sources. However, the election of President Trump has largely thrown a wrench into this formerly indestructible global wrecking ball—as Trump's financial partners deffer from those of past administrations. Despite the list of difficulties the election of Trump has brought with it, it seems clear that the pace and direction of global destruction by elitists—as the silence from North Korea appears to be proving—has notably improved.

Discerning the Mystery is a website dedicated to awakening and educating the people to their true potential of mental, spiritual, emotional, and physical growth. It can be difficult work, but if just one person benefits from these efforts, it is entirely worth it. If you enjoy what you read here, please give the post a like and share on social media. Also, if you enjoyed this article, please consider leaving a donation.

Feel free to send us an email and tell us what you think. If you have any suggestions or subjects you would like to see discussed, please let us know.